Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 712B / Act 288 of 1939
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.5 (2026)

Best interests of child; duties of courts.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PROBATE CODE OF 1939


Act 288 of 1939


712B.5 Best interests of child; duties of courts.

Sec. 5.

    In Indian child custody proceedings, the best interests of the Indian child shall be determined, in consultation with the Indian child's tribe, in accordance with the Indian child welfare act, and the policy specified in this section. Courts shall do both of the following:

    (a) Protect the best interests of Indian children and promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.

    (b) Ensure that the department uses practices, in accordance with the Indian child welfare act, this chapter, and other applicable law, that are designed to prevent the voluntary or involuntary out-of-home care placement of Indian children and, when an out-of-home care placement, adoptive placement, or preadoptive placement is necessary, place an Indian child in a placement that reflects the unique values of the Indian child's tribal culture and that is best able to assist the Indian child in establishing, developing, and maintaining a political, cultural, and social relationship with the Indian child's tribe and tribal community.

History: Add. 2012, Act 565, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013

PopularName Notes:

Probate Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “…did not involve a custody battle between two parents. Other provisions of MIFPA apply to custody battles. See, e.g., MCL 712B.5 ; MCL 712B.7.”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent…”
In re Williams, 915 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 4× “" MCL 712B.5(a). The protections in both acts aim to address the historical injustice caused by the removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “The ICWA and the MIFPA each establish various substantive and procedural protections for when an Indian child 1 is involved in a child protective proceeding. Relevant to this appeal, the ICWA sets forth the following substantive provisions for child protective proceedings…”
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” In re England, 314 Mich App 245, 251 ; 887 NW2d 10 (2016), citing MCL 712B.5(a) and In re Spears, 309 Mich App 658, 669 ; 872 NW2d 852 (2015).”
In re Spears, 872 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “MCL 712B.5. In MCL 712B.7(3), the MIFPA addresses transfers to a tribal court of a child custody proceeding involving an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe: In any state court child custody proceeding, for an Indian child…”
In re KMN, 870 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “They rely on a provision in MCL 712B.5, requiring the “best interests of the Indian child” to be determined “in accordance with [ICWA]” and argue the order of preference and good cause to deviate should also be determined in accordance with ICWA.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “, MCL 712B.5; MCL 712B.7. -7- Because AB was removed from a parent, the trial court was required under MIFPA to make findings on whether active efforts were made to provide remedial services, whether those efforts were successful, and whether respondent-mother’s continued…”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “, MCL 712B.5; MCL 712B.7. -7- Because AB was removed from a parent, the trial court was required under MIFPA to make findings on whether active efforts were made to provide remedial services, whether those efforts were successful, and whether respondent-mother’s continued…”
in Re Williams Minors (Mich. 2018). · cites it 4× “” MCL 712B.5(a). The protections in both acts aim to address the historical injustice caused by the removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
in Re beers/lebeau-beers Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “MCL 712B.5. As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and…”
in Re beers/lebeau-beers Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “MCL 712B.5. As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.5(a) — 19 cases
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “…did not involve a custody battle between two parents. Other provisions of MIFPA apply to custody battles. See, e.g., MCL 712B.5 ; MCL 712B.7.”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent…”
In re Williams, 915 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. 2018). “" MCL 712B.5(a). The protections in both acts aim to address the historical injustice caused by the removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “The ICWA and the MIFPA each establish various substantive and procedural protections for when an Indian child 1 is involved in a child protective proceeding. Relevant to this appeal, the ICWA sets forth the following substantive provisions for child protective proceedings…”
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” In re England, 314 Mich App 245, 251 ; 887 NW2d 10 (2016), citing MCL 712B.5(a) and In re Spears, 309 Mich App 658, 669 ; 872 NW2d 852 (2015).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.5(b) — 5 cases
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “…did not involve a custody battle between two parents. Other provisions of MIFPA apply to custody battles. See, e.g., MCL 712B.5 ; MCL 712B.7.”
In re Williams, 915 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. 2018). “" MCL 712B.5(a). The protections in both acts aim to address the historical injustice caused by the removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, MCL 712B.5; MCL 712B.7. -7- Because AB was removed from a parent, the trial court was required under MIFPA to make findings on whether active efforts were made to provide remedial services, whether those efforts were successful, and whether respondent-mother’s continued…”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, MCL 712B.5; MCL 712B.7. -7- Because AB was removed from a parent, the trial court was required under MIFPA to make findings on whether active efforts were made to provide remedial services, whether those efforts were successful, and whether respondent-mother’s continued…”
in Re Williams Minors (Mich. 2018). “” MCL 712B.5(a). The protections in both acts aim to address the historical injustice caused by the removal of Indian children from their families and tribes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.